| dc.description.abstract | This work seeks to delineate what we obtain when we analyze William James’s pragmatism and radical empiricism through some of the most recent exhortations of the philosopher and biologist Donna Haraway, and vice versa. As an alternative to the notion or narrative of the Anthropocene — that is, the epoch of the humans, in which anthropogenic actions would have had a terrifying and irreversible effect on the conditions of life on the planet — Haraway proposes the Chuthulene, which, since it does not admits the extremes of pessimism and optimism, would demand our reflection and action. Jamesian pragmatism is, in simplified terms, a method for testing the practical consequences of certain philosophies, notions or concepts. Radical empiricism, which is more difficult to define, posits it as an instant of pure experience in which common distinctions, or traditional dualisms, have not yet taken place. The idea of the present therefore welcomes both the idea of pure experience in which these divisions have not yet been made and our ability, in a more metaphorical sense, to carry out a reflection that makes present the practical consequences of our actions, and which refers to the very need for weighting in the Chthulucene. As we will see, radical empiricism and pragmatism as a method can undoubtedly support, amplify and enhance the narrative or notion of Chthulucene proposed by Donna Haraway in Staying with the Trouble. This does not mean that both remain identical. Haraway's rejection of the category of belief will have to be revised, as will the Baconian inspiration of James’s pragmatism. | en |
